@SummerlanderI was going to show you this link,but I couldn't find it last night. Now I have,and its quite possibly the most brilliant article I have ever seen that addresses what real pacifism is all about. It was written by a well-known self-defense instructor by the name of "Marc Macyoung."http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fightorno.html

In short, pacifism is not only about being against violence, it also is about being non-violent.

To be a pacifist, you must be peaceful. And that means you don't use violence to get what you want. To be peaceful you strive for calm and tranquility; within in your mind, within your spirit, within your emotions and attitudes, within your words and within your behavior. You project peace, not violence. In short, being pacifistic means that you do not engage in any kind of violence yourself.

Unfortunately, most self-proclaimed 'pacifists' are anything but pacific. When considered with the definition of violence given below (click down, and return) the implications of Mr. Young's statement should bring you up short. It is very easy to be extremely violent without ever being physical about it. Pacifism is not -- as many self-proclaimed pacifists do -- screaming vitriolic anger at people and then claiming you are non-violent because you didn't punch anybody. If you think this is an exaggeration, look at photos and examine the faces of people who are engaged in "peace protests," or better yet, watch their actions and behaviors on film, especially when they are confronting someone. They are many things, but non-violent is not one of them.

Pacifism is not about being "verbally/emotionally violent" and then hiding behind a convenient definition so you don't get punched. Nor is it about being selfish and hurtful and relying on convention to keep you safe. People who engage in violence without ever "stooping" to physical violence are not being pacifistic. In order to get their way, they are trying to control the degree of violence in which they participate. What is interesting to notice is the intense unease of these kind of people have when around individuals who they deem "violent." (e.g. those who will take it physical). Our theory is that their reliance on violence makes them uncomfortable around someone who is willing to go further with it than they.

This is absolutely true. the vast majority of self-proclaimed "pacifists" that I've met in real life were nothing more than verbally/emotionally abusive cowards who just wanted free reign to abuse whoever they want without fear of physical retaliation. I have,however,met true pacifists online and they are indeed wonderful people. Even though I will never understand their refusal to physically defend themselves,they are at least true to their calling and not just using their pacifist status as a shield to enable their bad behavior like the false pacifists do.

Summerlander wrote:'Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, "he that is not with me is against me".'

~George Orwell

Even Gandhi was well aware that his pious pacifism would not have worked on the Nazis. Imagine if we never had Winston Churchill's belligerence against Adolf Hitler and the Allies continued to employ terms of appeasement just like Neville Chamberlain.

Picture scores of Jews willingly standing still---hoping to set a 'good' example to the enemy---as the Fuhrer's brainwashed henchmen slaughter them like rats. The Holocaust would have been worse; the Third Reich would triumph; Hitler would smile.

Today, imagine Western 'infidels' appeasing the Jihadist masses brewing in the Levant and beyond! Imagine we chose not to fight the Islamic State, an enemy brainwashed by the religious doctrine mandating the enslavement and murder of nonbelievers ...

So much for pacifism ...

I completely agree. That quote says it perfectly. Also the story about Gandhi running around India half naked and giving freedom is absolute bulls**t. Gandhi was just some of the persons leading the freedom fight. It was not because of his non violence. One of the main reasons was the financial strain of the 2 world wars had seriously affected Britain empire. That along with rebellion of indian soldiers and angry population of India was one of the main reasons. But the history manipulated to suit certain agendas in India. Even now just read some history books of Indian high school, jihadi kings who made pyramids out of infidel heads are hailed as secular saints and economists and the native kings(mostly Hindus) are looked down upon. Also too be true, western infidels have been appeasing jihadis ever since they came. Giving them a label to hide under(islamophobia) even when they threaten to destroy and do attack west, western infidels still protect them. That's not secularism that's just cowardice. The jihadis are not as tough as they look. Just show them their place and they will accept. The problem happens when you let them out of control. Ever since jihadis have appeared in west, the western infidels have always rolled over and shown their belly. Whenever this happens they get more bold. Of all the states in India, Gujarat is the only one with not much problems of jihadis. This I believe is most probably the result of the infamous 2002 riots that happened in Gujarat. I am pretty sure it is known by the westerners considering that it was a heated topic of discussions among the liberals around the world.

Last edited by LoneDreamer on 24 Nov 2017 20:07, edited 1 time in total.

Bertrand Russell, someone I admire, considered himself to be a pacifist. But he was also for self-defence. Would you guys say that certain self-righteous cowards out there gave pacifism a bad name?

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Summerlander wrote:Bertrand Russell, someone I admire, considered himself to be a pacifist. But he was also for self-defence. Would you guys say that certain self-righteous cowards out there gave pacifism a bad name?

Definitely. Really,there is absolutely no shame in protecting yourself from bad people. You can be a good person who isn't afraid to go hands-on when the need arises,especially when you're faced with monsters like these:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aorAHKlnQy0 (Warning: Very graphic video)

Right now in college,I have a classmate who I can confirm,is a false pacifist. While he's not a verbally/emotionally abusive bully,he reeks of passive-aggressiveness,and he's vehemently against learning martial arts/how to physically defend oneself. (He doesn't like the fact that I read e-books about the topic on my android when I'm bored in class or waiting for the professor. he can't do anything about it,but I can see the obvious displeasure in his face whenever I do.)

We can get along on a superficial level (Like I said,I don't seek conflicts.),but he's the type of person I could neither foster a genuine friendship with,nor someone I could ever truly respect.

I remember him actually bluntly telling me that people don't really like me and are just pretending to get along with me to be polite. with a "no offense" at the end of the sentence of course Now what kind of peaceful person would say something so obviously rude? (and very untrue. I may be an introvert who isn't actively trying to make friends,but I've had a lot of meaningful conversations with several different classmates) especially when I never asked for his opinion to begin with. I just brushed it off and changed the topic. I simply don't want to add unnecessary conflict into my now peaceful life. Though if this were an anonymous conversation on the internet,I would have gladly ripped his "opinion" to shreds

But do you want to know the one incident that truly confirmed to me that he's a false pacifist? we were once talking about bullies,and he's actually gotten himself physically assaulted before,but he's always refused to retaliate/defend himself. He mentioned to me that sometimes,he wished he could "kill" them.

Now,that was probably an exaggeration,and hey,I don't blame him for hating his bullies. But this is definitely not how a true pacifist thinks or feels. If you have vengeance inside your heart,you're certainly not a truly peaceful person. Yeah,he's just a self-righteous coward who doesn't like the idea that people have the right to physically defend themselves.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Summerlander wrote:Bertrand Russell, someone I admire, considered himself to be a pacifist. But he was also for self-defence. Would you guys say that certain self-righteous cowards out there gave pacifism a bad name?

Yep, I kind of agree. Peace should used when it can be, but not fighting back even after being repeatedly attack is cowardice. If someone slaps you, don't show him the other cheek, inquire about the reasons and if its some silly reason, slap him twice .

Summerlander wrote:Bertrand Russell, someone I admire, considered himself to be a pacifist. But he was also for self-defence. Would you guys say that certain self-righteous cowards out there gave pacifism a bad name?

Definitely. Really,there is absolutely no shame in protecting yourself from bad people. You can be a good person who isn't afraid to go hands-on when the need arises,especially when you're faced with monsters like these:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aorAHKlnQy0 (Warning: Very graphic video)

Right now in college,I have a classmate who I can confirm,is a false pacifist. While he's not a verbally/emotionally abusive bully,he reeks of passive-aggressiveness,and he's vehemently against learning martial arts/how to physically defend oneself. (He doesn't like the fact that I read e-books about the topic on my android when I'm bored in class or waiting for the professor. he can't do anything about it,but I can see the obvious displeasure in his face whenever I do.)

We can get along on a superficial level (Like I said,I don't seek conflicts.),but he's the type of person I could neither foster a genuine friendship with,nor someone I could ever truly respect.

I remember him actually bluntly telling me that people don't really like me and are just pretending to get along with me to be polite. with a "no offense" at the end of the sentence of course Now what kind of peaceful person would say something so obviously rude? (and very untrue. I may be an introvert who isn't actively trying to make friends,but I've had a lot of meaningful conversations with several different classmates) especially when I never asked for his opinion to begin with. I just brushed it off and changed the topic. I simply don't want to add unnecessary conflict into my now peaceful life. Though if this were an anonymous conversation on the internet,I would have gladly ripped his "opinion" to shreds

But do you want to know the one incident that truly confirmed to me that he's a false pacifist? we were once talking about bullies,and he's actually gotten himself physically assaulted before,but he's always refused to retaliate/defend himself. He mentioned to me that sometimes,he wished he could "kill" them.

Now,that was probably an exaggeration,and hey,I don't blame him for hating his bullies. But this is definitely not how a true pacifist thinks or feels. If you have vengeance inside your heart,you're certainly not a truly peaceful person. Yeah,he's just a self-righteous coward who doesn't like the idea that people have the right to physically defend themselves.

Your classmate seems like more like an egoistic coward who can't fight back and just uses pacifism as facade to save his ego.

Summerlander wrote:Bertrand Russell, someone I admire, considered himself to be a pacifist. But he was also for self-defence. Would you guys say that certain self-righteous cowards out there gave pacifism a bad name?

Yep, I kind of agree. Peace should used when it can be, but not fighting back even after being repeatedly attack is cowardice. If someone slaps you, don't show him the other cheek, inquire about the reasons and if its some silly reason, slap him twice .

I like this.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

RedKryptonite wrote:What would you have done? Just curious. was your situation really that hopeless? would your parents have listened to you if you begged them as hard as you can to transfer you?

Yes, because the teachers and staff were SO mean to me, that they put horrible things in my school record. I even wanted to go to a higher up high school, which was supposed to be a better place, but because of the horrible things these teachers said, the psychologist even blackmailed me often, I wasn't allowed to. That school all the way around really hated me.

If I had been able to turn the clock around, I would have gone to karate as a child, becoming a brown belt by the time I reached middle school. When those bullies tried to pick on me with all that training, I would have smacked them down (if they are trying to all attack me at once, knocking them out is my only line of defense). A brown belt can also face several bullies at a time. Religion or school, I would have protected myself and had way more confidence. Of course then I would have gotten "expelled" from that school and excommunicated from that religion for violence, but then I could be home schooled until high school, never having to face bullies again. Perhaps if time travel becomes available, I will fix some of the things that need fixing in the past.

Yep, I kind of agree. Peace should used when it can be, but not fighting back even after being repeatedly attack is cowardice. If someone slaps you, don't show him the other cheek, inquire about the reasons and if its some silly reason, slap him twice .

What probably got me into trouble with bullies to begin with. Was taught as a kid that fighting was the wrong thing to do. Maybe they did that because of my gender back then. I once smashed the fingers of a drunk guy on a plane, because he kept grabbing my side. He wasn't able to grab my side after I broke his fingers.

An example of lucid dreaming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW7ps_VSPkg (1:46 Is that me or is this me? "Am I still dreaming?") Simpsons example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3X1n5Yny3g